Barlakhom dismissed the family's pleas for political asylum and the father's offer to assist the city in construction. The father stated that his name is Joseph, but illegals are known to use aliases. "Joseph" claimed that he has carpentry skills.

"If we allow this man from Judea to work here, he will be stealing a job from a hard-working Egyptian," Barlakhom said.

The family claimed that they feared for their lives as King Herod had sent killing squads into Bethlehem to murder newborn boys and asked the Egyptian government to grant them asylum under the Convention Against Torture. The Egyptians, however, dismissed their claim after receiving "diplomat assurances" from Herod that the family would not be harmed.

"We take Herod at his word that the family will not be harmed in any way," said Egyptian Minister of State Code Raziya.

On the streets, average Egyptians had little sympathy for the family's plight.

"What part of illegal don't they understand," asked one merchant. "They should get in line, just like everyone else."

"Today we give this illegal alien a job, and tomorrow he'll be asking for in-state tuition for his kid," added another merchant.

That's funny hypocrisy coming from that hotbed of atheism, the ACLU. Your earlier narrative isn't even close to being Biblically accurate, even in a paraphrasing way. Being an atheist, it's not surprising that you'd take license with the Bible. Try this:---------------------------------Cease Citing Bible To Defend Bush’s Immigration Bill Opinion

The Bible does address the inclusion of strangers in civil and legal terms in Exodus 12:49, Leviticus 24:22 and Numbers 15:14, which proclaims that there shall be one law for citizens and strangers alike. ----{Remember all of those illegal aliens who should be punished for using fraudulent documents?}---- But it is important to note that while strangers did have rights, they only earned them once they went through what in those days constituted the process of naturalization: circumcision and abandoning idolatry. Strangers were required to strictly obey Israelite law and not undermine the legal fabric of Israelite society.

As a Christian I am appalled by the exploitation of the Bible as a justification for violating our immigration laws. That lawyers would espouse the violation of the law and give dignity to that act is revolting, and to use a Biblical analogy to boot is unconscionable. There is no question of misapplication of law to illegal aliens, something that would be within its purview. The laws regarding arrest and deportation exist, and have been acknowledged as constitutional. Moreover, the laws have the support of the American people. The ACLU finds itself on the wrong side the law with respect to illegal immigration. I suggest that the ACLU forgo its tendencies towards making this a religious melodrama and stick to defending citizens whose constitutional rights are violated. Its current inclination is to act as a mouthpiece for political advocacy and as an agent of the Mexican government and its people.

James: "As for being on the "Wrong Side"--seems that that's where most significant American progress has started (Civil and Women's rights, etc)."

The civil rights movement and women's rights have foundations in the Constitution of the United States. Giving legitimacy to the illegal alien rights movement would require a fundamental change to that document, in effect ceding our rights to foreigners. Illegal aliens are not the "We" in "We The People" of the Constitution. If they were, and as far-fetched as some would assert, all our enemies would have to do is make it to our shores, claim a majority in our Congress and annex us to their homeland using our own legal system and legislatures. That's why the "People" in "We The People" retain the right to control our immigration and naturalization policies, and oppose "gate crashing" by foreigners.

A second amnesty would only encourage further illegal immigration, as others come, convinced that we care nothing for enforcing our immigration laws, crossing with the expectation of a third amnesty. Illegal alien advocates would have us believe that they have the solution to illegal immigration, when, in fact, all they have are risk borne theories, just as those who advocated the last amnesty. Our country took the risk based upon assurances by Kennedy and the Democrats, and now some are all too willing to listen to the same incompetents once again.

Central and South America are churning out tens of thousands of poor, illiterate and unskilled every year, all who would have the lure of the U.S. on their minds if a new amnesty were granted today. No guest worker program could ever accommodate all of them, nor would it solve the problems of poverty and illiteracy that are the root cause of illegal immigration. The problem would continue, ad infinitum, and the advocates of guest worker programs and amnesty would justly earn contempt for their work in undermining our nation, regardless of their good intentions. God save us from the useful idiots who prey on our emotions and disregard common sense and history.

RE:As a Christian I am appalled by the exploitation of the Bible as a justification for violating our immigration laws

First of all I was citing the Torah, not the "Bible". There is more than one religion on this planet, you know.

Second of all, my citation was not meant to encourage a violation of our current laws, regardless of how ill-advised they may be, but to remind us that there is a higher law that we must be mindful of as we make our way on this earth.

Sure, Andy, if you had said something even less intelligent then it would have made more sense in Alan's eyes.

Leviticus is also the third book of the Bible, Alan, and your citation is exactly same in both cases. Your ignorance astounds me.

My parents are from Venezuela, and I can tell you from my Hispanic perspective that people like you are gullible if you buy the Mexican government's propaganda that its citizens are entitled to more than deportation. Who do you think will control these amnestied aliens when they gain citizenship? It will be Filipe Calderon and Vincente Fox, of course. It's all in the plan, duel citizensip for all, and influence in the internal affairs of the U.S. for the Mexican government. This immigration issue is nothing more than a strong-armed imposition of a foreign presence on U.S. soil using bluster and false accusations of racism. They've even got the Church on their side to make anti-Christion accusations towards their opposition, but you never hear the Vatican criticizing Mexico, do you? I've read enough of the anti-blogs (which have it exactly right) to realize that you people are in the minority, thanks be to God. You liberals are such suckers for a sad tale.

RE: Our country took the risk based upon assurances by Kennedy and the Democrats.

From an article by Steve Chapman:

Reagan didn't so much accept immigrants as smother them with kisses. When he announced his presidential candidacy in 1979, he called for closer ties with Mexico and Canada: "It is time we stopped thinking of our nearest neighbors as foreigners." As president, he said providence had deliberately placed the United States "between the two great oceans, to be found by a special kind of people from every corner of the world."

In 1977, Reagan expressed doubt about the "illegal alien fuss" and suggested that such foreigners were "doing work our own people won't do." In 1986, he signed the immigration reform bill that conservatives now revile as "amnesty."

Skewering bigots aside, it would have been nice to see one blog post that said, simply, "Happy Holidays." Or perhaps a piece on goodwill between men and women, or something in the spirit of the season (e.g. "ACLU defends Santa ...". The lack of any such post is rather sad. The vast majority of PA's citizens do celebrate the holidays, and wouldn't it be grand if an organization that is supposed to be for all citizens would actually recognize that?